The need for monsters as beings rather than statblocks.

[Derren]

What is most important will depend on one's focus. I don't know what proportion of folks my view represents. Certainly not all, but at least a fair minority. I think enough to make the question of what focus best serves the community to be a good question to ask, and to discuss.

When presenting the new rules, one can present them with a tie between story or theme to mechanics. I don't think that putting in that tie is exclusive of presenting the mechanics, or that it takes away from the mechanics. And, the context is not just the playtest, but also the article, which is a focus on monster design. The discussion is not just on the play of the game. The discussion is also about how the game is put together. Design serves design goals. What are those goals?

TomB

Very good post.
What WotC does not show tells us more than what is shown. Like with the 4E playtest WotC focuses only on combat. And like back then there is a vocal crowd who answers every concern about the balance between combat and non combat coming from that with "Its just a playtest, those things will come later".

And what happened with 4E? Those things never came except skill challenges which could have required more playtesting.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I used to have the Hook Horror action figure from the 80s, man, those were cool.

What makes me very happy is they've gone back to the 2nd Monstrous Compendiums as a base for monsters, they are great, the richest ever (and all the campaign setting specific ones kick ass); and sometimes I'll just pull the 2nd Ed Monstrous Manual of my shelf and read for a while.

 

[Lord Zack]

Only arises if the monster is used as a playable race.

If you're playing a hack and slash campaign maybe. As a DM I do "play" the monsters, and control their interactions with players. These may be hostile or not. The more information I have, the easier it becomes to run the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Monsters need be more than stat blocks only if used as a playable race.

Disagree massively. Not sure you read the whole thread or whole OP as to why. If you did, care to comment on my points?


EDIT TO ADD: Rereading my comment to you made me think that it could be taken as snide. I didn't mean it that way at all. I invite disagreement, if with specific points (and I'd like to hear someone disagreeing with those points, or even simply providing their own points against the overall idea). If you just disagree with the title, that's fine too,

I am not that interested in the thread. A monster serves as an antagonist. It need be only detailed enough to be a good antagonist. As long as the mechanics - statblock - of the monster works as promised (that is, as long as a monster that's supposed to be, say, a meaningful threat to a level X party, /is/), it's fine. Anything more than that the DM can add. Having some fluff/flavor (ecology, history, in-game rationales, etc) as a starting point isn't a bad thing, but it shouldn't ever be hard-wired in (it can even be separate from the statblock, as in the old 'Ecology' articles, or one of several different ecologies). A DM shouldn't have to put a lot of effort into re-designing a monster if he wants it's 'ecology' or whatever other fluff to be a little different.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I used to have the Hook Horror action figure from the 80s, man, those were cool.

What makes me very happy is they've gone back to the 2nd Monstrous Compendiums as a base for monsters, they are great, the richest ever (and all the campaign setting specific ones kick ass); and sometimes I'll just pull the 2nd Ed Monstrous Manual of my shelf and read for a while.

I seriously disagree that the 2nd ed monstrous compendium was the richest ever. Sure, it's the best to read when you aren't actually playing. But I own both it and the 4e monster manuals. And the 4e ones tell me more through organisation and powers about the way monsters think than the 2e ones tell me through ecology. I want a 2e/4e hybrid.

 

[Campbell]

I seriously disagree that the 2nd ed monstrous compendium was the richest ever. Sure, it's the best to read when you aren't actually playing. But I own both it and the 4e monster manuals. And the 4e ones tell me more through organisation and powers about the way monsters think than the 2e ones tell me through ecology. I want a 2e/4e hybrid.

I know this won't be a popular opinion on these boards, but I find the 2e MM an incredibly boring read from any standpoint. It takes what should be mythical creatures ripe in narrative potential and describes them in the dynamic language of a biology textbook.

 

[Authweight]

I think the 4e Monster Vault is pretty much the perfect monster product. It was released somewhat later in 4e's run, so many who moved away from the edition may have missed it, but it is truly an awesome product. It came in a big box with a softcover book of monsters (319 pages), an adventure module, a poster map, and punch out tokens for every single creature in the book. The creature entries include good art, lots of fluff and ecology information, and 4e's awesome statblocks that make monsters so easy to run right from the page. There is a liberal use of standout text placed into the space left open by the statblock format that features evocative quotes from named characters talking about the enemy described in the entry, or sometimes even quotes from the enemy himself. The second monster vault had lots of other nice touches as well, such as humanoid enemies grouped into thematically distinct types, often based on specific organizations or locations in the Nentir Vale setting.

This is what 5e should offer right out of the gate. A product that is well-written, well-produced, un-pirateable, and useful for total newbies as well as experienced DMs.

 

[Steely_Dan]

And the 4e ones tell me more through organisation and powers about the way monsters think than the 2e ones tell me through ecology.

How so?

 

[pemerton]

I know this won't be a popular opinion on these boards, but I find the 2e MM an incredibly boring read from any standpoint. It takes what should be mythical creatures ripe in narrative potential and describes them in the dynamic language of a biology textbook.

The 2nd ed monster entries don't do anything special for me.

Until 4e, my favourite monster book was RM's Creature and Treasures - so many monsters, both classic and made-up for the game, in one book, with tight statblocks and minimal but strong descriptions. Within 4e, I like the MM and MM2 better than the later books for their monster selection and flavour resentation, but have to agree that MM3 and MV have better stats.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Neonchameleon[/B]]
And the 4e ones tell me more through organisation and powers about the way monsters think than the 2e ones tell me through ecology.

How so?

Goblins v Kobolds

(Note that 4e kobolds are different to 2e ones - we've changed from dog-heads to lizard-heads).

2e

From the stat block, kobolds are smarter (8-10 vs 5-10), and have probably more treasure. Also slightly smaller (3ft vs 4ft) and have slightly fewer hit points (both go down to one hit). Also kobolds live in the arctic and goblins don't. "Goblin [combat] strategies are simple and crude. They are often cowardly and will avoid a face to face fight. More often than not they will attempt to arrange an ambush of their foes." So goblins ambush people. Whereas "The kobold approach to combat uses overwhelming odds or trickery." In other words they ambush people or trap them - and there is more about the traps. I'm getting an athropologists field guide here including what pets they keep.

4e (Monster Vault)

First the Kobold fluff is better IMO - I don't believe anything in the 2e Monstrous Manual matches the opening "Kobold. Few can say the word with anything but disgust and disdain - few except for the proud and proliferate kobolds, of course." Instant difference - the 2e MM tells me what others think of kobolds, not what they do of themselves. But that's not the point I'm making here.

Basic Kobold vs Basic Goblin (level 1 minion).

Name: Sniper (Goblin) vs Tunneller (Kobold)

This difference is huge. It tells me that the most basic of goblins you are likely to fight are wannabe warriors - whereas the most basic of kobolds are tunnellers - i.e. craftsmen coming to defend their territory (not that others always agree that it's their territory). Straight away I have a huge difference in who out of the given tribe fights - for the kobolds it's everyone. Goblins on the other hand are either all wannabe warriors (think bandits) or have noncombatants.

Type: Artillery (Goblin) vs Skirmisher (Kobold)

Goblin minons do not want to get close. Kobolds don't either, but they aren't specialists and will do what they can.

Meat:
The goblin minion gets +2 to hit (being artillery) and the Sniper trait (if it misses with a ranged attack while hidden it can stay hiden). Goblin minions are superb ambush setters and seldom take risks (they are also trained in stealth). The kobold minion on the other hand is much more of a jack of all trades - and very slippery (shifty) and hard to hit even with area bombardment (Narrow escape).

Basic summary of the difference:
Your goblin minion is an ambushing thug, good at hiding and then bringing down the enemy. Your kobold minion is a craftsman who's downed his tools and is really frustratingly hard to lay your hands on.

Experienced Goblin Warror vs Experienced Kobold Warrior (level 1 skimisher)

Name: Cutthroat vs Quickblade

They are both small and deft - both skirmishers. As you'd expect for such creatures (the orc equivalent would be the "Battletested Orc" who is a soldier). They also have almost identical stats here even to the point of a shift 3 as a move action at will. But the names have different implications - the kobold is a slippery little sod you can't lay your hands on.

Meat:
There's only one fundamental difference between the two. The Cutthroat has a 1d6 Sneak Attack when it has combat advantage. The Quickblade gets +2 damage for every square the kobold has shifted since the start of its turn. This, however leads to very differnet optimal tactics. The best thing the Cutthroats can do is a quick flank and gank and using their shifting to keep with a foe. The Quickblades on the other hand are mechanically encouraged to keep moving leading to a battlefield full of slippery chaos as you never know where the kobolds are going to end up.

So again the goblins are cowardly ambushers, sneak attacking. Whereas fighting kobolds is fighting against small and chaotic enemies that won't let you lay a hand on them.

Specialist warriors: Goblin Beast Riders vs Kobold Dragonshields.

This difference is a fascinating one. Not so much the beast riders (who are consistent with the theme of goblin bandits). But the Dragonshields. The Kobold specialist warriors are soldiers who stand and fight (unlike just about every other goblin or kobold out there) and even mark people. 4e Kobolds aren't cowardly - they are just small and to borrow a line from Captain Jack Sparrow when told he'd lose in a fair fight "All the more reason for me not to fight fair then" (even the Dragonshield literally uses Dirty Tactics).

Fire Support: Slingers vs Hex Hurlers.

Kobold slingers are pretty much experienced ranged kobold warriors. But as for the Kobold Tunnellers, the kobold theme of being craftsmen (as well as trapsmiths) comes into play directly. Kobold slingers carry crafted pots full of really irritating stuff to sling at the enemy (what it is varies).

The hex hurler is the leader - being the scariest goblin going. (Interestingly the Kobolds don't have a leader type, further underscoring the point thta although they are obnoxious they aren't warriors and aren't lead through force of arms - their chieftain can as easily be a tunneller). And for its level the Hex Hurler might well be the most obnoxious and vicious spellcaster in the game (post MV - it's not a negative play experience in the way the MM1 Dracolich was for instance).

So we have two types of small but vicious monsters in both the 2e Monstrous Manual and in 4e. Both have a stinking reputation and are common adversaries - and in 2e they don't think or move very differently other than the kobolds set traps and retreat. But in 4e just through having different sets of statblocks in the MM they are seen to think and behave fundamentally differently.